1. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    12 Jan '14 01:31
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Clearly you don't understand evolution theory. I recommend reading a bit about it, after which you might learn that evolution theory says nothing about "evolving out of something that [is] not alive."
    Clearly I believe that if you are going to have an origins theory, then you must have a theory that deals with the origins of life. A theory that states that life has always been inexistence is laughable. A theory that says at one time life did not exist but then evolved, but does not claim that life came into existence from dead material is laughable.

    Your beliefs are rooted in nonsense.
  2. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    12 Jan '14 01:33
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    For a supposed teacher you are pathologically naive about evolution. The only reason I see that is your complete religious brainwashing. It just goes to show how the human race is not as intelligent as it thinks it is if you, a supposedly educated individual can be taken in, totally duped by 3000 year old creationist fairy tales.

    There is not much hope ...[text shortened]... l Creationism has to take part of the blame.

    May you choke on your supposed love of science.
    You will never choke on your love of 'science' because you will not even attempt to deal with truth and reality. You will only accept what someone tells you at face value and not question anything. You are a sick individual who grasps at science as a way of attacking Christians.
  3. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    12 Jan '14 01:39
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Clearly I believe that if you are going to have an origins theory, then you must have a theory that deals with the origins of life. A theory that states that life has always been inexistence is laughable. A theory that says at one time life did not exist but then evolved, but does not claim that life came into existence from dead material is laughable.

    Your beliefs are rooted in nonsense.
    And you are a total and utter moron and I pity your students.

    Evolution is an explanation [theory] of how LIFE changes over time in
    response to it's environment.

    It doesn't cover how life came to exist in the first place.

    That is a different process and thus requires a different explanation, a
    different theory.

    Abiogenesis, in point of fact.

    There are in fact OTHER processes by which life can change outside of
    evolution [horizontal gene transfer for example] which have their own
    explanatory theoretical frameworks.


    And you would know this if you were not an incredible ignoramus.
  4. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    12 Jan '14 02:061 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    And you are a total and utter moron and I pity your students.

    Evolution is an explanation [theory] of how LIFE changes over time in
    response to it's environment.

    It doesn't cover how life came to exist in the first place.

    That is a different process and thus requires a different explanation, a
    different theory.

    Abiogenesis, in point of fa ...[text shortened]... ry theoretical frameworks.


    And you would know this if you were not an incredible ignoramus.
    In other words you do not believe that life evolved from ooz?

    Just to make sure I understand you on this issue:

    You do not believe that evolution explains life as we know it? In other words you do not believe that evolution explains how we came into being.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    12 Jan '14 04:532 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    And you are a total and utter moron and I pity your students.

    Evolution is an explanation [theory] of how LIFE changes over time in
    response to it's environment.

    It doesn't cover how life came to exist in the first place.

    That is a different process and thus requires a different explanation, a
    different theory.

    Abiogenesis, in point of fa ...[text shortened]... ry theoretical frameworks.


    And you would know this if you were not an incredible ignoramus.
    NO. I am the moron.

    Here is some information for you from non-morons.

    Evolution - A Crumbling Theory

    YouTube

    Everything biological refutes evolutionism and illustrates creation. Every single little thing. Evolutionists know this, and so they fabricate fanciful, imaginative stories and evidences are produced from plastic and wax to give us the impression their wacky ideas are scientific.

    Scientists: The Theory of Evolution is False pt. 1 of 2

    YouTube

    Scientists: The Theory of Evolution is False pt 2 of 2

    YouTube

    As an evilutionist, the following video explains what you must believe about the origin of life:

    David Attenborough: Origin of Life, Arrival

    YouTube
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    12 Jan '14 07:47
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Clearly I believe that if you are going to have an origins theory, then you must have a theory that deals with the origins of life. A theory that states that life has always been inexistence is laughable. A theory that says at one time life did not exist but then evolved, but does not claim that life came into existence from dead material is laughable.

    Your beliefs are rooted in nonsense.
    but does not claim that life came into existence from dead material

    I am guessing here you don't understand rudimentary logic and don't understand the distinction between “does not claim” and “denies” here?
    And you say you were a teacher? that's terrible!
    A theory of how the Sun works also “does not claim” this but it doesn't deny it either and thus, just like with evolution, is irrelevant to abiogenesis.
  7. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    12 Jan '14 07:571 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    In other words you do not believe that life evolved from ooz?

    Just to make sure I understand you on this issue:

    You do not believe that evolution explains life as we know it? In other words you do not believe that evolution explains how we came into being.
    You do not believe that evolution explains life as we know it? In other words you do not believe that evolution explains how we came into being.

    he clearly didn't imply either of these things.
    This is extremely simple to comprehend; abiogenesis explains how the very first life came into existence without evolution; evolution that followed abiogenesis explains how that first life eventually changed its form into all the forms of life we see today including us. Simple! Which part of that do you not understand?
  8. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    12 Jan '14 08:35
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Clearly I believe that if you are going to have an origins theory, then you must have a theory that deals with the origins of life. A theory that states that life has always been inexistence is laughable. A theory that says at one time life did not exist but then evolved, but does not claim that life came into existence from dead material is laughable.

    Your beliefs are rooted in nonsense.
    If your belief is that every scientific theory should explain everything, then we can throw away all science. Our theory of gravity doesn't explain electromagnetism. Our theory of electromagnetism doesn't explain gravity. Are both wrong? Better quit my job then.

    In the most general, abstract sense, evolution is an algorithm describing the behaviour of replicating agents interacting with an environment. This algorithm has applications beyond biology, in sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology and information sciences. The question of how these replicating agents came to be is simply not relevant for the theory.
  9. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    12 Jan '14 09:485 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    If your belief is that every scientific theory should explain everything, then we can throw away all science. Our theory of gravity doesn't explain electromagnetism. Our theory of electromagnetism doesn't explain gravity. Are both wrong? Better quit my job then.

    In the most general, abstract sense, evolution is an algorithm describing the behaviour o ...[text shortened]... . The question of how these replicating agents came to be is simply not relevant for the theory.
    Exactly!
    Just like how the very first ever river first started is totally irrelevant to a theory of how a river causes erosion.
    Just like how the very first ever tree started from a tree seed/spore germination is totally irrelevant to a theory of how trees form tree rings.
    Just like who or what pushed the first domino in a line of dominoes is totally irrelevant to the theory of the domino effect.
    Just like how the very first life started is totally irrelevant to biological evolution.
    Etc.
    In each case, what started the process is totally irrelevant to the theory of how the process continuous once started.
    This really is an extremely simple and easy concept to understand but the creationist still choose to be confused by it.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    12 Jan '14 13:06
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    If your belief is that every scientific theory should explain everything, then we can throw away all science. Our theory of gravity doesn't explain electromagnetism. Our theory of electromagnetism doesn't explain gravity. Are both wrong? Better quit my job then.

    In the most general, abstract sense, evolution is an algorithm describing the behaviour o ...[text shortened]... . The question of how these replicating agents came to be is simply not relevant for the theory.
    There is only one theory that explains everything. However, you don't believe.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    12 Jan '14 15:14
    Originally posted by humy
    Exactly!
    Just like how the very first ever river first started is totally irrelevant to a theory of how a river causes erosion.
    Just like how the very first ever tree started from a tree seed/spore germination is totally irrelevant to a theory of how trees form tree rings.
    Just like who or what pushed the first domino in a line of dominoes is totally irrel ...[text shortened]... ely simple and easy concept to understand but the creationist still choose to be confused by it.
    We are not confused by it. We just want to get it right. Evilution is not right. God created animals to reproduce after their own kind and not to change into other kinds. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal. The evidence that we can observe is that one kind of animal always reproduces the same kind of animal. We never see a dog reproducing a monkey or a monkey reproducing a man. Those are the scientific facts that you do not want printed in the Science Forum.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    12 Jan '14 16:52
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    We are not confused by it. We just want to get it right. Evilution is not right. God created animals to reproduce after their own kind and not to change into other kinds. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal. The evidence that we can observe is that one kind of animal always reproduces the ...[text shortened]... a man. [b]Those are the scientific facts that you do not want printed in the Science Forum.[/b]
    No shyte sherlock. Again with the frog becoming a prince. NOBODY says that and you know dam well. You just try your best to twist what is ACTUALLY said to your pathetic ends which would be a joke if it were not for the consequences for millions of youngsters potentially forced to be taught bogus creation crap in a science class.

    The bottom line: You are a pathetic pathological liar.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    12 Jan '14 17:15
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    No shyte sherlock. Again with the frog becoming a prince. NOBODY says that and you know dam well. You just try your best to twist what is ACTUALLY said to your pathetic ends which would be a joke if it were not for the consequences for millions of youngsters potentially forced to be taught bogus creation crap in a science class.

    The bottom line: You are a pathetic pathological liar.
    The pathological liars are those that keep teaching our kids that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and evilution is a fact.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    12 Jan '14 17:20
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The pathological liars are those that keep teaching our kids that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and evilution is a fact.
    I am content with another fact: You and your ilk grow weaker with each passing decade, eventually to be in the dust of history along with moon landing deniers and other asssholes.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    12 Jan '14 19:25
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I am content with another fact: You and your ilk grow weaker with each passing decade, eventually to be in the dust of history along with moon landing deniers and other asssholes.
    Everything is devolving instead of evolving, but I am content to know my God has a plan for new heavens and a new earth and will save those that believe in Him.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree